The Supreme Court just sent shockwaves through the gun rights community by refusing to hear two high-profile Second Amendment challenges: Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island.
Both cases targeted bans on AR-15-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines—laws that gun owners across the country hoped SCOTUS would finally strike down.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry’s trade association, called the Court’s denial deeply disappointing. NSSF had funded the Ocean State challenge and warned that the justices were allowing lower courts to continue undermining the Second Amendment.
“We respectfully disagree with Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s statement,” the NSSF wrote, referencing his comment that the Court should wait another “Term or two” before stepping in.
NSSF instead praised Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented strongly: “I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners.”
Schiff Show: CA Sen. Pushes Assault Weapons Ban
Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) echoed that frustration, noting that Snope v. Brown was a case of “critical national importance” for Maryland residents who want access to America’s most popular rifle.
“Our primary concern is that American gun owners will have to once again wait for the high court to accept a case and determine whether state level bans violate the Constitution,” he said. Gottlieb acknowledged the Court’s overloaded emergency docket but found hope in Kavanaugh’s suggestion that review may still come soon.
But Washington Gun Law’s William Kirk didn’t hold back. In a scathing video breakdown, Kirk slammed the Court’s refusal as a “bloodbath” for gun rights. “We got ourselves a 6-3 conservative majority, do we?” he asked sarcastically, accusing Kavanaugh of issuing a “feckless apology letter” rather than a meaningful dissent.
SEE ALSO: SIG Sauer Cross Sawtooth Magnum
Kirk cited Thomas’ blistering opinion, which shredded the Fourth Circuit’s rationale that AR-15s aren’t protected by the Second Amendment. Thomas argued the burden should be on the government to prove a ban is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition—a burden Maryland hasn’t met.
As Kirk put it: “This is a massive slap in the face.”
Justice Thomas wrote, “Our Constitution allows the American people—not the government—to decide which weapons are useful for self-defense. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”
For gun owners in states with existing bans, Kirk says this means more pain ahead. “Better buckle up. They’re coming full blast for your firearms and magazines,” he warned.
While Kavanaugh and others hinted that future assault weapons cases could bring clarity, 2A advocates say they’re done waiting.
As Kirk bluntly summarized: “These cases were exactly what the United States Supreme Court said they always wanted… but they really don’t want to resolve this case now, do they?”
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
So then what happens when SCOTUS runs from addressing this issue so long that one or more otherwise law-abiding citizens decides that resisting is preferable to surrendering to the police and facing years of prison time until the issue is (hopefully) decided? Is SCOTUS going to vacate the associated convictions (resisting arrest, assault with a deadly weapon, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, first degree murder, etc.)? Is SCOTUS going to assume criminal and civil liability for their dereliction of duty and abdication of responsibility?
Gee… I always thought it was abbreviated
“SCOTUS”…
Instead, it must be
“COWARDS”. Little wonder that Patriots are CONTINUALLY disappointed by the Republican party. We give them our support, money, loyalty and vote… all the while listening to the GREAT things they would do IF they only had (pick one)
The House,
The Senate,
The White House,
The Supreme Court,
A Mandate,
etc., etc., ETC!!
They may be better than the alternative, but when the time comes for them to get off their asses and govern, they’re either paralyzed by cowardice, or distracted by di** —measuring contests.
I understand full well that people with functioning brains will disagree, but just once, I would love for the damn Republicans to fall in line and be lock-step, joined at the hip in pursuit of something… anything… that would make this nation greater. They have countless examples from the minions across the aisle.
Pathetic. Roberts has been a sell out since the ObamaCare vote. Barrett was billed as a conservative, but apparently just for religious BS. She is all in on totalitarian government powers. Both are useless RINOs.
All the real justices, actually doing their jobs, supporting the Constitution wanted to take these cases!
I want to apologize for my comments toward you. I misunderstood the intent of your post and should never retaliated towards you. feel free to hate me if you wish!
No problem. My comment was obtuse and unclear. Glad you saw that we are on the same side!
thanks, but i’m still going to feel bad about it for awhile.
had to respond up here….
sorry day that the 1A now bans speech, and allows for criminal acts! just like the the 2A bans guns for the law abiding…….and yet half the american people can’t see the changes the commie left is doing to the constitution!
unless i woke up in a different universe, the supreme court is to defend the constitution not entertain any screwball idea to subvert it!!!
Comey Barrett stood down when she allowed colleges to force students to take dangerous jab. She has turning into a neo-Sandra Day O’Conner.
Well regulated.
Yes, it was the intent that the militia be “well regulated” as in highly drilled to be a proficient battlefield force. By now, I hope you understand at least this much.
our constitution says “shall not be infringed”! not can be infringed.
i’m sure in your country it’s different!
Pronouns = troll.
pronoun my ass learn english you commie moron!
i’m sure you go by the communist constitution that is the total opposite of the USA one. “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean what ever you feel like today!!!
Glad we cleared up that I am on your side, not the one that needs to explain what flavor they are or like. Or that doesn’t understand that Justice Scalea already explained the prefatory clause in the Second Amendment is not limiting to the primary clause or “infringement”. That BS is just the desperate gasps or gun grabbing, totalitarian trolls.
The only way the First Amendment means anything is backed up by the Second. We already saw the First trampled on during COVID.
Blue Dog’s suggested reading, “Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution” by Jack N. Rakove. A brief bio below and quote from the book below.
“JACK RAKOVE, the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies and a professor of political science at Stanford University, is one the most distinguished historians of the early American republic. He is the author of, among other books, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1997. He frequently writes op-ed articles for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other major newspapers. He has been an expert witness in Indian land claims litigation and has testified in Congress on impeachment.”
What did it mean to be well regulated?
One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings
of words change or diverge.
“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed,
well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in
that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was
in an effective shape to fight.”
In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather
that the militia was prepared to do its duty. -Jack N. Rakove
Glad that’s finally settled on the GA Digest.
You’re welcome BD.
You too dacian.
should have thrown in to prevent misuse and abuse of said militia……..like threats made by sens. rep. and pres. of using the military against U.S. citizens who own guns.
Ed (my pronouns are obvious) – As noted by Scalea in the Heller vs DC decision, “well Regulated” is part of the prefatory clause, and irrelevant. This is just like: “Bacon being delicious, breakfast shall not be infringed.” This does NOT limit breakfast infringement to breakfast with bacon.
Try again.